Dillon Vs. Castro

[Pat Speer]

In fairness to Tim, Mark, I should point out that has explained the cover-up before. He's suggested that LBJ orchestrated the cover-up because he was scared of the international ramifications and scared that big bad Fidel could get him next. In recent posts he seems to have retreated somewhat from this weak assertion, by acknowledging that LBJ may have been blackmailed into performing the cover-up. With LBJ's ties to Marcello going back to the fifties, and his neighbor Fred Black's ties to Rosselli, he could very well be right this time.

[Mark Stapleton]

In fairness to Tim, Mark, I should point out that has explained the cover-up before.  He's suggested that LBJ orchestrated the cover-up because he was scared of the international ramifications and scared that big bad Fidel could get him next.  In recent posts he seems to have retreated somewhat from this weak assertion, by acknowledging that LBJ may have been blackmailed into performing the cover-up.  With LBJ's ties to Marcello going back to the fifties, and his neighbor Fred Black's ties to Rosselli, he could very well be right this time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat,

Thanks for that. I vaguely recall Tim giving some weak explanation as to why the coverup occurred--if Castro was behind the assassination--but Tim's never really explained it all. I wish he would so it wouldn't appear that me and others are always pursuing him on this.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark,

taken at face value, LBJ's conversations as recorded indicated he initiated the cover-up because he FEARED foreign involvement which would, he felt, inexorably lead to a catacylsmic nuclear exchange.

So in response to your question why would LBJ initiate a cover-up to benefit Castro, his motive was not to benefit Castro: it was to prevent a war and the death of innocent Americans. Now a war would only result if it was established rather clearly that Castro was involved. So certainly LBJ knew that the cover-up could benefit Castro, but that is not why he did it.

Also remember that at the time LBJ himself may not have known of the US plots against Castro.

Now if LBJ's suspicions of Cuban involvement were correct, the cover-up may very well have saved millions of American lives. If it should now be established that Castro did it, particularly because of out current knowledge of US plots against Castro there will not be a popular outcry to retaliate against Castro.

If the fear of war prompted the cover-up, that fact alone does not prove Castro did it. There could have been false clues planted to implicate Castro. Those clues could have been planted by conspirators HOPING the clues WOULD prompt an invasion of Cuba--in which case their plan backfired. Or the clues might have been planted by persons astute enough to realize that concern over the implications of a foreign conspiracy would prompt a cover-up.

Regardless of the sincerity of LBJ in ordering the cover-up, we know that Earl Warren went along with LBJ's orders because LBJ raised the war scenario with him.

Re Pat's post, there is evidence that LBJ was regularly accepting pay-offs from Marcello through a "bagman" named Jack Halfen. So it is also certainly possible that the Mafia used its knowledge of LBJ's corruption to encourage LBJ to squelch an investigation. And I think it also possible that RFK could have been vulnerable to blackmail. Certainly RFK had reason to believe that a full-fledged investigation would have revealed JFK's involvement with Judith Campbell. RFK was (rightly from his perspective) more concerned with preserving his brother's reputation than solving his brother's murder.

[Steve Mullard]

[so in response to your question why would LBJ initiate a cover-up to benefit Castro, his motive was not to benefit Castro: it was to prevent a war and the death of innocent Americans]

Apologies for changing the tone of the thread but Tim's comments beg an obvious question namely if LBJ was so concerned about the death of innocent Americans, why did he sanction and accelerate Vietnam.....

[John Simkin]

Apologies for changing the tone of the thread but Tim's comments beg an obvious question namely if LBJ was so concerned about the death of innocent Americans, why did he sanction and accelerate Vietnam.....

Another interesting question. We are asked to believe that LBJ did not order the invasion of Cuba because it might lead to a nuclear war. Although he is supposed to have strong evidence that Castro was behind the assassination, he decided not to take Castro out in case it triggered a war that would kill "39 million Americans". Instead he covers it up and takes the very good chance of this being discovered and denounced as the real person by the assassination.

In 1963 both the American and Soviet government took decisions based on the sphere of influence theory. This gave the Soviets the right to invade countries in Eastern Europe. This is why the Americans refused to take action against the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. This upset the CIA (it probably caused Frank Wisner to have a mental breakdown following the Hungarian Uprising that he had helped to create) but they knew the rules.

The advantage of this policy was that America knew that it could overthrow governments in the Americas. This is why the CIA got so upset with JFK when he failed to follow the sphere of influence policy with Cuba. They claimed it was a no risk policy. JFK still refused and therefore encouraged the Soviets to take the chances that resulted in the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK had good reasons not to invade Cuba (he was trying to adopt an ethical foreign policy). However, LBJ had the perfect excuse to take out Castro. Yet he did not take it.

LBJ does not show the same fear when attacking North Vietnam. This is a country that borders China. Vietnam was considered to be in China’s sphere of interest. At the time, China was seen as a greater threat to America than the Soviet Union. Unlike the Soviets, the Chinese government had not abandoned its theory of world revolution. In fact, it had criticised the Soviet Union for adopting its “socialism in one country”. Like good Marxists they believed that such a policy would eventually lead to a counter-revolution. China had shown in Korea that they were willing to take on America if it posed a threat to its power in the region.

Therefore, my question to Tim is: “Why should LBJ adopt such different views towards Cuba and North Vietnam?”

[Tim Gratz]

Thank you, John. Here is one possible answer:

LBJ did not want to be Fidel's next target.

In my opinion, LBJ was the greatest thing that happened to the civil rights movement in the second half of the twentieth century. That helped not just the black race in America but all of American society.

Having now given the man his due (and a big "due" it is), he was also a crook. And not only a crook. He was also a coward.

Edited June 21, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

LBJ did not want to be Fidel's next target.

LBJ knew that Castro could not get him. He also put in place a system of security that made another assassination of a president very difficult.

Having now given the man his due (and a big "due" it is), he was also a crook.  And not only a crook.  He was also a coward.

Interestingly, LBJ showed little fear following the assassination of JFK (Larry Hancock is very good on this in his book Someone Would Have Talked). Yet, it had long been believed that a Soviet nuclear attack would be preceeded by the assassination of both the president and vice president. For some reason, LBJ knew he would not be a target in Dallas.

[Tim Gratz]

John, I read he was cowering, hiding in a restroom aboard Air Force One he was so certain there was a conspiracy and he was also targeted.

[Mark Stapleton]

John, I read he was cowering, hiding in a restroom aboard Air Force One he was so certain there was a conspiracy and he was also targeted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tim,

It would be understandable that LBJ was nervous. Remember, those hearings were going on in Washington re Billy Sol Estes et al which had the potential to put LBJ behind bars. He was gambling all or nothing so he was entitled to be nervous--I'm sure those reports of him cowering alone were correct. Basically, his life was on the line--but not from a bullet.

[Mark Knight]

All this discussion begs the question:

IF it was apparent 42 years ago that Castro was behind the JFK assassination; and IF the reason for covering up Castro's involvement was to prevent a cataclysmic nuclear war...WHY, after the demise of the Soviet Union and the decompositon of the Soviet empire of satellite states--and the threat of attack from any of them--has the truth never been officially revealed?

Assuming that Tim is correct, that Fidel was the mastermind of the assassination...with the current administration's emphasis on the apprehension and detention of terrorists from around the globe...WHY would they NOT pursue the supposed perpetrator of one of the EARLIEST post-WWII examples of a state-sponsored terrorist act committed on American soil?

All the US government would have to do is release the heretofore suppressed evidence, which would convince the world that Fidel Castro was the KING of modern terrorists...and it would only be a short drive to incarcerate him at the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention center "in perpetuity" [borrowing a phrase from a Bush Administration official describing how long they had the legal authority to detain terrorism suspects and "enemy combatants"].

THAT is what makes the Castro-did-it scenario seem far-fetched to me; if "anyone who harbors a terrorist IS a terorist," then that definition makes the entire Cuban nation a terrorist state. But Washington isn't headed that direction...so that fact makes me believe that, if the Bush administration IS sincere in what they are saying about state-sponsored terrorism, they already KNOW Castro wasn't involved.

Otherwise, they are being hypocritical in their "GLOBAL" war on terrorism...and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, that they are NOT hypocrites.

So, Tim...I guess the question boils down to this: Is Castro faultless, or is the Bush administration hypocritical? I don't find room for any gray areas here. If the government has proof that Castro is the terrorist who took out JFK, why aren't they pursuing him? Fidel isn't even in hiding, as Osama is; so he should be an easy mark for a counterterrorism squad.

Or is this a use of the Townes VanZandt defense ["We only let him slip away...out of kindness, I suppose...]???

Or am I the only one who connects the dots in such a pattern? Surely, if some agency [CIA, FBI, SOMEbody] knows the truth, and the truth is that Castro did it, WHAT could POSSIBLY be a deterrent TODAY to revealing the truth and demanding justice? Couldn't be nuclear war anymore...what COULD it be? Unless Castro DIDN'T do it.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, you have a very good post but it is easily answered.

There was not a "smoking gun" in 1963 but there was adequate evidence to suspect a foreign plot. The evidence could have been legitimate (i.e., it really did lead to foreign involvement) or false (either deliberately planted by the real conspirators or not planted but misinterpreted as pointing to a foreign conspiracy). In any event the fear of possible proof of a foreign conspiracy caused the government to close all investigations that would either prove or disprove a foreign conspiracy. For instance, the government ordered both the CIA and the FBI in Mexico City to cease their investigations.

So I doubt that there are any documents that absolutely prove a foreign conspiracy.

Alexander Haig, however, has been quoted as stating that he saw a document that demonstrated a foreign conspiracy but he was ordered to forget he saw the document.

[Mark Knight]

Alexander Haig, however, has been quoted as stating that he saw a document that demonstrated a foreign conspiracy but he was ordered to forget he saw the document.

So Haig was "ORDERED to forget he saw the document"...but he evidently defied a direct order. So is Haig a man of unimpeachable morals because he admits to having seen the document, or is Haig a bad soldier--and therefore a man of questionable morals--for failing to follow orders?

Tim, my point is that, if the case against Castro is as unquestionable as you believe it to be, the current administration would've taken action. After all, they went to war in Iraq on less credible evidence of WMD's than you allegedly have implicating Castro in the JFK assassination...and Castro's closer, Guantanamo is minutes from Castro's home, and we could wrap up all the speculation and go home, a la the judge and the sheriff in The Night The Lights Went Out In Georgia. If government inaction against Castro is due to a lack of evidence, then that in itself shows the holes in your case. After all, Dick Cheaney is STILL proclaiming that there was a direct Saddam-Al Quaeda connection, despite a lack of evidence; yet they won't use the terrorism swatter to remove that pesky fly just 90 miles away, despite your continuous assertions that it's an open-and-shut case.

Or maybe 90 miles IS too much like "fighting terrorists on our own doorstep," and we PREFER the war to be half a world away.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, GWB still has a couple of years to take care of Fidel.

We might yet see the release of information implicating Castro in the assassination.

So have some patience!